[twister6]

 

There is another point I would like to make.  When we say something has elevated bass or sounds brighter, in theory it's a relative comparison to some reference we have in mind.  It's easier when you are comparing any given pair of earphones/headphones.  But when you are describing a sound of one particular earphone/headphone, that's where "neutral" plays a VERY important role because you want to use it as a reference for comparison.  For me personally, it used to be RE600 and then ES60, but ever since I got my hands on UERR - it became my golden neutral reference I compare other c/iems against when describing what I hear.

Maybe most peoples reference is what their father was playing music on when they were kids.

 
If that is a case, it will probably be a vinyl with a lot of background pops/clicks/hissing

 

[jmills8]

If that is a case, it will probably be a vinyl with a lot of background pops/clicks/hissing

maybe but for sure no bass.

 

[Jalo]

Nic, while you are at it, can you compare and contrast organic to natural?

 

[PinkyPowers]

Nic, while you are at it, can you compare and contrast organic to natural?

That's a good point. It should be interesting to read how he distinguishes those two.

I feel they sit very close to one another, while maintaining autonomy. When I write about an organic sound, it's usually in contrast to a cold, digital sound. I use this term mostly when talking about DACs and DAPs. The better the DAC, the more organic the sound becomes. Less "digititis", which is a made-up word, but one that refers to a very real ailment in mid-fi gear. Its very hard to describe. It's like the audio equivalent of a pixelized image. There's a messiness to it: a lack of refinement.

In headphones, I would call a warm, smooth sound organic. One that doesn't feel artificially bright, and where the details aren't forced to the forefront with treble peaks.

Natural... I say could be applied to any tuning, so long as it's balanced so well it just feels "right". Bright or dark, if it's tuned skillfully enough, it just works. It shouldn't enhance sibilance, or have sharp edges to the sonics, nor suffer a noticeable veil.

But that's just me.

 

[deafdoorknob]

in my understanding of traditional hi-fi terms natural and organic might overlap but still different enough to be seperate categories.

Natural is often used as a descriptor for higher frequencies or perhaps frequency extremities, and usually used to denote the lack of exaggeration or undue emphasis of them. (frequency based)

Organic is often used to denote the density of the tone/notes and often in regard to the midrange and bass. (frequency) however it could also denote fully resolved decay of notes as well as phase coherence (temporal)

off the top of my head, two examples of "organic" that might not be "natural" would be Campfire Nova and Fitear TG334 (which I own), both have very "organic" in tone and have tremendous sound density but in FR terms, both are lower mids and bass emphasised.

Fitear F111 otoh would be more "natural" sounding to me.

ymmv

 

[flinkenick]

I hope everybody had a nice turnover! I had some fun, but paid the price yesterday. 
 

  thank you for all your effort and marvelous reviews about top iems. 2017 will be nice to watch.

 
Quote:

bravo, articulate, eloquently and thoughtfully expressed and on a new year's eve! thank you

 
Quote:

+100. I'm going to piece all of the musings together into a Word Doc for my reference. I hope you do not mind, @flinkenick

 

 

I seriously think you should articulate this all into a book. I love the way you take the time and effort to break such a tough topic to such a meticulous detail in such simple terms that even an idiot like me can easily grasp the subject.

If you won't do it, I will. And I ain't gonna share the royalties!

 
Thanks for your kind responses, and the rest for the likes/comments! I'm glad to hear its useful.
 
@Docterror let me get back to you on those royalties buddy 

 

 

[flinkenick]

@crinacle Interesting point, thanks for sharing!
 
@doctorjazz and @fzman also share some really interesting points on how neutral relates to the 'actual world' of instruments, and specifically the lack of coloration to the music. This further demonstrates that what we have in mind when we use certain phrases doesn't necessarily mean the same as what someone else has in mind, especially with audiophile terms. I think referring to neutral as the relation between how actual instruments or a concert sounds to how it is portrayed in a system is probably very correct, maybe even more so than my own. The interesting thing is that it's a very different way of thinking, as it connects to the actual sound of live instruments (what I would refer to as tonal accuracy). 
However, the difficult part is that when live music is recorded, it is recorded by digital equipment, then mastered and edited, then maybe compressed into a certain file, LP or album. Then, we use a certain system to create a sound from that digital file. So I personally view that point as the beginning of the process; the point where the system creates music from a digital file - rather than the original instrument. So I don't incorporate the actual instrument as the beginning of the line, because it's not like somebody is playing a guitar directly for us, that sound is going through a cable, and then passed on to our ears so to speak. There is already a significant amount of coloration once music is recorded and processed, and it is inherently impossible to not have coloration.
So the only thing we can do, as @fzman already hinted, is artificially create something that sounds natural to our ears - we can't transfer a pure sound, because of the coloration in the recording, dap, etc.
Anyways, it's not a difference in right or wrong so to speak, it's just a difference in how to see the process. And I'll admit I actually mostly just have this 'digital' perspective because live music isn't enough in my mind as a reference point. Anyways, thanks for sharing! Interesting to hear how others view these aspects.

 

[flinkenick]

Nic, while you are at it, can you compare and contrast organic to natural?

James, excellent question. @PinkyPowers and @deafdoorknob have made some good points and I see it very similarly. 

I don't really use the term organic a lot, I think I only might have used it in the 8.2 review. My personal interpretation, and that's all it really is, would be that organic is characterised by a warm sound, that is also very coherent in its staging and tone. What this basically means is that all the instruments have a more or less similar warmish tone, and really convey that they're playing together as a band. Organic in this sense means 'alive' or 'human', as a counterpart to analytic, which is 'digital' or 'clinical' where tones might be more precise, they are also more segregated and isolated. When compared to the term natural, I would say that organic in a practical sense translates to a warmer sound, while natural doesn't necessarily have to. For instance, Deca sounds natural, but it isn't warm. It actually fits the bill of @fzman and @doctorjazz's description of neutral as well as natural. Two examples of an organic monitor would be the 8.2 and 5-Way Reference. However, I wouldn't necessarily use 'natural' as a keyword to describe the 8.2's signature, as I would the Deca or Aether (as in turn I wouldn't use the term organic for them).

If I were to line up the terms we discussed on a scale of warmth, it would be: organic - natural - reference - analytical, where natural and reference stray slightly off the path of neutral in either direction, and organic and analytical go even further. 

However, @deafdoorknob brought up some interesting points about density and decay as well, and I think that's a very good addition; with organic also referring to a more denser midrange for instance. So organic for me would refer to a certain density, coherency and warmth in a signature, and obviously an emphasis on a midcentric signature. A natural sound doesn't necessarily have to be midcentric as it can also be neutral, it just can't be analytical.

 

[doctorjazz]

This is an interesting discussion, @flinkenick. When I write about audio (which is not as much as you do), I tend to think of "organic" (when I think of it at all, which isn't that often) in a different way. That is, not as coloration or frequency response, but a gestalt of musicians playing with each other and interacting together. Over the years of listening to gear, I've (and you all) heard gear that gets bass down really well, gets cymbals to really ring, gets the female vocal to be really lush and seductive, get a huge wide and deep soundstage, but may not be as good at putting the interactions of the musicians, the way they play together and play off each other, out there. Looked at this way, there is gear, less expensive, that may not have as good tonality as the higher priced gear, but makes you feel the musical intent better. To some extent the old PRAT, sharpness of rhythm has much to do with this, timing errors and all, but it is possible to get that gestalt from some gear that doesn't do tonality as well as the high priced spread. (of course, my gear writing comes from a music listener's perspective rather than a gear perspective, as I started out just writing about jazz which is why it is sometimes all over the place, kinda improvisational, but never mind...).

 

[deafdoorknob]

This is an interesting discussion, @flinkenick. When I write about audio (which is not as much as you do), I tend to think of "organic" (when I think of it at all, which isn't that often) in a different way. That is, not as coloration or frequency response, but a gestalt of musicians playing with each other and interacting together. Over the years of listening to gear, I've (and you all) heard gear that gets bass down really well, gets cymbals to really ring, gets the female vocal to be really lush and seductive, get a huge wide and deep soundstage, but may not be as good at putting the interactions of the musicians, the way they play together and play off each other, out there. Looked at this way, there is gear, less expensive, that may not have as good tonality as the higher priced gear, but makes you feel the musical intent better. To some extent the old PRAT, sharpness of rhythm has much to do with this, timing errors and all, but it is possible to get that gestalt from some gear that doesn't do tonality as well as the high priced spread. (of course, my gear writing comes from a music listener's perspective rather than a gear perspective, as I started out just writing about jazz which is why it is sometimes all over the place, kinda improvisational, but never mind...).

reading your perspective, i am reminded of Julian Vereker (late founder of naim audio) and the whole flat earth audio "movement"

 

[diivoshin]

Really nice list so far, Flinkenick! Looking forward to what the rest of the list is.

 

[proedros]

so, when will numero 16 appear here ? 

 

[DWbirdseye]

  so, when will numero 16 appear here ? 

When he takes delivery of the Tia. 

 

[seamon]

  When he takes delivery of the Tia. 

I thought he won't review the tia since he's reviewing the A18

 

[DWbirdseye]

I thought he won't review the tia since he's reviewing the A18

It's a joke, but why not wish big?